Like General Washington, Jones understands that only Congress has the authority to initiate a war:
A lot of FReepers would fail basic Constitutional civics.
In the letter, President Washington responded to Moultrie's request for troops for a potential counteroffensive against the Creek Nation (in the context of ongoing conflicts with Native American tribes). He explained that he had consulted General Pickens for information but could not authorize offensive action without Congress:
August 28, 1793, in a letter from Philadelphia to South Carolina Governor William Moultrie.
"Having conceived an opinion highly favourable to General Pickens, I invited him to repair to this City in order that I might obtain from him such facts & information as would be essential to an offensive Expedition against the refractory part of the Creek nation, whenever Congress should decide that measure to be proper & necessary. The Constitution vests the power of declaring War with Congress, therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject, and authorised such a measure."
Final note:
"Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification." - George Washington
Yes, Washington I believe wound up not deploying troops in GA.
But at that time, in the NW territories(Ohio), I don't think Washington asked for a formal "Declaration of War" for the NW Indian War.
I believe Congress did legislate to fund the war, including funding the state militias and federal troops.
So there, I believe is an example of Washington commanding the troops and Congress only funding the troops.
“Jones understands that only Congress has the authority to initiate a war:”
1. Cite the number of wars that have occurred since WWII.
2. Cite the number of wars since WWII that have been initiated by Congress.
JEFFERSON FOUGHT YJE DORST BARBARY WAR WITHOUUT A FORMAL DECLARATION FROM CONGRESS.
He was very diesel in that. But, Jeffersonians were unequal to him he task of British impressment and the War of 1812, and it feel to Jackson at New Orleans to kick British ass, and restore American honor.
Very effective
Do you belive that DeSantis would have fought the War in a more effective way?
The last president to obey the Constitution by obtaining a formal Declaration of War against a foreign nation, before committing American soldiers to die and funds from the treasury to a foreign war, was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The nation in 1941 had been attacked. The people’s representatives in Congress supported the president’s request by assembling and voting a Declaration of War the day after the attack.
Since 1941 successive presidents have consciously, deliberately, and in violation of the Constitution committed the nation to bloody, lengthy, and extremely costly foreign wars without obtaining the consent of the people through a vote of their elected representatives. The reason - the president could not make a strong enough case to obtain the consent of Congress. As a result we spent the lives of tens of thousands of our troops, and trillions of borrowed money from the treasury in wars.
How is the country better off because we shed the blood of our soldiers in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Grenada, Panama, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Kosovo, Somalia, and now Iran? In Korea the communist north is now a nuclear power and the boundaries between North and South Korea are set at the place they were before the North invaded the South. The communists North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam, despite the 58,000 American troops killed, in a war the president justified because all of South Asia would fall to communism if we did not save South Vietnam. After the US withdrew from the war South Vietnam fell but the fear all of South Asia would fall did not materialize.
What did we gain from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? The Taliban rules Afghanistan today, just as it did before we went to war. Islamic terrorists still find refuge in Afghanistan, just as they did before our troops invaded. Iraq, an independent country hostile to Iran before we invaded (twice) is now a client state of Iran. Syria, Libya, Lebanon and Somalia today are unstable nations where terrorist run free and plague the region. We did succeed in long term regime change in Grenada and Panama. But is our nation safer or economically advantaged due to those brief wars? Panama joined the Chinese Silk Road initiative in 2017 and many of the Panamanian ports in the Canal Zone area are operated by Chinese, not American countries. Grenada is essentially a client state of the US thanks to the hundreds of millions in aid money sent to that nation. Is victory in an undeclared war against Grenada something to be proud of today? It certainly did not result in a net benefit to the US economy.
The rule of law in this nation degraded throughout the 20th century as presidents, the courts, and Congress selectively followed the requirements of the Constitution. To anyone who believes in strict interpretation of the Constitution as written, wars entered into by presidents without the consent of Congress are unconstitutional and a violation of the oath of office. To those who believe in the “living” Constitution, which can be updated through interpretation or selective obedience, presidents going to war without the consent of the people’s representatives is completely justifiable.
Ultimately, if we choose the living Constitution, there are no constraints on the power of government. Based on their writings and speeches our founding fathers would be appalled at the war powers presidents have exercised since 1941, without consent of Congress.